4 ms·

What does "co/contravariant representations" even mean? It sounds from this and your other comments on this thread that you are preaching from a relative point

What does "co/contravariant representations" even mean? It sounds from this and your other comments on this thread that you are preaching from a relative point of ignorance about type systems. This kind of anti-progress attitude is why writing software is miserable and we leave trillions in productivity on the table. Understanding how to use languages with advanced type systems takes some time if you are not used to it, but it's significantly _less_ arbitrary bullshit to absorb than what you had to learn to use C or Java effectively and comes with far more added value in return.

jmull 8y ago
You're fundamentally on shaky ground when you use your ignorance as the basis for deciding someone else's level of ignorance. Notice you started your response with a question. You need the right answer to that question before you can meaningfully continue.
- kenmicklas 8y ago
  Huh? I'm pointing out that the phrase used by OP doesn't really make much sense. I'm not like a dank profunctor whiz or something but I think I know what co/contravariance are...
  - ajross 8y ago
    I probably should have written "kerfufflery" or something more colorful. The point was that dicking around with your type system trying to "understand contravariance" is directly hurting your ability to write and ship working solutions to real problems. Typesafety is only one axis (and a minor one at that) required by correct software, and this kind of masturbatory obsession with it doing no one any good. There's a reason why so little true world class software (in the sense of beating out the competition with the sheer force of its value to users) is written in Haskell. If that's "anti-progress", then sign me up I guess.
  - jmull 8y ago
    The OP's statement doesn't make sense to you. That doesn't necessarily mean OP's point doesn't make sense or that OP doesn't know what he/she it talking about. It means you need more info before you can judge. (Also: I didn't mean to make any statement about your knowledge of type systems. I was referring to your understanding of what OP was attempting to communicate.)
    - tome 8y ago
      OP's statement doesn't make much sense in context of the article under discussion. Perhaps it make sense in another context.
- pharrington 8y ago
  He's arguing that gp's opinion is, in fact, grounded in his opening question's exemplary ignorance.

jmull 8y ago

You're fundamentally on shaky ground when you use your ignorance as the basis for deciding someone else's level of ignorance. Notice you started your response with a question. You need the right answer to that question before you can meaningfully continue.

kenmicklas 8y ago
Huh? I'm pointing out that the phrase used by OP doesn't really make much sense. I'm not like a dank profunctor whiz or something but I think I know what co/contravariance are...
- ajross 8y ago
  I probably should have written "kerfufflery" or something more colorful. The point was that dicking around with your type system trying to "understand contravariance" is directly hurting your ability to write and ship working solutions to real problems. Typesafety is only one axis (and a minor one at that) required by correct software, and this kind of masturbatory obsession with it doing no one any good. There's a reason why so little true world class software (in the sense of beating out the competition with the sheer force of its value to users) is written in Haskell. If that's "anti-progress", then sign me up I guess.
- jmull 8y ago
  The OP's statement doesn't make sense to you. That doesn't necessarily mean OP's point doesn't make sense or that OP doesn't know what he/she it talking about. It means you need more info before you can judge. (Also: I didn't mean to make any statement about your knowledge of type systems. I was referring to your understanding of what OP was attempting to communicate.)
  - tome 8y ago
    OP's statement doesn't make much sense in context of the article under discussion. Perhaps it make sense in another context.
pharrington 8y ago
He's arguing that gp's opinion is, in fact, grounded in his opening question's exemplary ignorance.